This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Ultimately, the disposition of Star Angel was premised on the ruling that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond necessarily stays the period for perfecting the appeal, and that the employer cannot be expected to perfect the appeal by posting the proper bond until such time the said motion for reduction is resolved. The unduly stretched-out distinction between the period to file an appeal and to perfect an appeal was not material to the resolution of Star Angel, and this could be properly considered as obiter dictum. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The dismissal of an appeal for failure to post an appeal bond was likewise assailed in Rural Bank of Coron (Palawan), Inc. v. Cortes.[35] Notably, while this Court upheld the dismissal, it made the following pronouncement: It bears emphasis that all that is required to perfect the appeal is the posting of a bond to ensure that the award is eventually paid should the appeal be dismissed. Petitioners should thus have posted a bond, even if it were only partial, but they did not. No relaxation of the Rule may thus be considered. (Emphasis supplied) In the recent case of Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. (PTSI),[36] this Court sustained the ruling of the CA that PTSI substantially complied with the required posting of a cash or surety bond not only because the filing of its motion for reduction of the bond was justified, but also because it immediately submitted a bond which it attached to its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing its appeal. | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the June 13, 2000 Decision[2] and the December 20, 2000 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 55146. The dispositive part of the assailed Decision reads as follows: | |||||